moving forward; we need to complete the central freeway ancillary projects as i mentioned, rehabilitate van ness avenue. some of those parcels which are not in contract, and also make sure that we return the excess funds to the mayor's office of housing. as for those items where expected to come before the board in the near future, you see on the slide both leases with caltrans for the skid park and dog run [speaker not understood]. the hub will need to be vacated. in addition we expect to request a minor adjustment of planning code requirement for the two small parcels m and n. as a reminder those items which you have already authorized via a 2009 ordinance are shown on the bottom of the slide and so the disposition of the remaining parcels at market rate are already authorized by the board. this concludes my presentation. olson lee from the mayor's office of housing is going to

say a couple concluding words. and we also have representatives from real estate and dpw here if there's any questions for them. >> thank you, mr. rich. and olson lee is our director of mayor's office of housing. >> thank you very much, supervisors. olson lee. ken rich's presentation pretty much covered the, sort of the nuts and bolts and sort of the dollar amounts of the plan going forward. i just wanted to talk a little bit about how both first the redevelopment agency and [speaker not understood] the mayor's office of housing has used and intends to use the affordable housing parcels. clearly one of the goals of the early involvement of the redevelopment agency was to front money towards the completion of the boulevard and facilitate that at a time when there were not entitlements for

the remaining parcels. and, so, we were able to enter into agreements with the city early on, provide funds, funds that were from our low mod housing funds to the city so that the city could begin working on the octavia boulevard. and we were very, very glad to do that, in part, because one of the goals of the -- both the neighbors as well as the city was to restitch the neighborhood. not only were we talking about transportation improvements. we're talking about how we're going to rebuild upon those vacant parcels and how those vacant parcels add to a reinvigorated neighborhood. and i'm very, very pleased that work with the neighbors in creating half of those units that were -- are being projected as affordable housing

units and doing that in a way that has been very, very sensitive to the notion of quality design, to the notion of diverse populations being served. the first two affordable housing parcels, parcel a and parcel c were senior developments. the next development was a affordable rental development for people with developmental disabilities. the most recent evelopment, which is the richardson apartment, is for persons who were formerly chronically homeless. i think in all of those cases we've provided a very well designed and well operated affordable housing development and we intend to do so for the future of affordable housing parcels. what we had assumed for parcel o was looking at affordable

family housing because that was one of the population that we had not yet served in the previous development. * populations and we hope to develop those to provide for the development of affordable housing for transitional use on parcel u and ultimately in 2020 when our lease with proxy that we hope to do some additional affordable ownership housing on parcel k. in that way, we will have provided sort of a breadth of affordable housing serving, again, a very, very difficult verse need. i'm pleased to report back to the board that not only has our affordable housing been successfully financed, but it's been recognized both by the aia, and most recently the richardson apartment was recognized by not only national organizations, but global organizations in terms of its quality of design, as well as

the population it serves. and it really is a reflection of not only the mayor's office of housing, but also the city as a whole because clearly the mayor's office of housing cannot sustain -- we can provide the capital, but in terms of the operation of, say, richardson apartment, that is very dependent on our relationship with both the department of public health and human services agency. so, again, we look forward to answering any questions that you may have on our parcels as well as the rest of the octavia plan. thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question. i don't know if it's proper to address it more at mr. rich or open [speaker not understood]. so, i know in terms of the financial transactions surrounding the parcel transfers, earlier this year

the transportation authority and its council had raised concerns about those transactions. and i just wanted to know what the concern was and what the status is and were those concerns valid or not valid? >> thank you. shortly before an earlier hearing on the finance committee a few months ago, transportation authority raised questions before the hearing. one of the reasons we're here today is to address those concerns. so, we have been advised by the city attorney that the path we're on is something that we can do. i would refer to the city attorney for further detail on that because i don't want to give you a legal answer, but i think that's why the city attorney is here, to answer that question. >> then, to the city attorney. >> yes, i'd be happy to answer that. deputy city attorney carol wong. the concern was the amount of money that we were showing as a true up going back to the agency and some of the concerns of whether or not that should

really be used for transportation projects. and we agree wth the transportation authority that all the proceeds coming in from the sales of these properties were to be used for transportation projects. what i think the overlook was is at the time the agency bought these parcels we weren't sure what the purchase price was going to be. we knew the upper amount was going to be approximately $17-1/2 million, but it could be a lower amount and that lower amount would have been the difference between the funds received from all these different parcels and the cost to do the transportation projects and the ancillary projects that were listed in that resolution. when the transportation authority looked at this earlier, they were looking at money going back to the agency and thought that was money going to affordable housing instead of for transportation purposes. but really what it was was that we were looking at what the purchase price the agency was going to pay. and at that point from early estimations we could tell that the purchase price was going to be the lower amount. it wasn't going to be 17-1/2

million, but approximately am around million. the shortfall was going to be a little bit less. the money was not going to be given to the agency and now mo, affordable housing. in essence the amount they overpaid up front as we were wait tog figure out what the purchase price would be, they agreed they would pay the higher amount and wait i'd the end of the day and see if that was ing to be the lower amount for the purchase. >> then it would be a true up? >> yes, that would be a true up at the end of the day. they would look at the difference between all the proceeds coming in, all the costs going out and the difference between that was going to be the amount the agency paid for the parcel. >> and, so, apparently a misunderstanding? >> i think so. we all agree these need to be used -- revenues need to be used for transportation projects. but the amount of money going back to the redevelopment agency and mo was not revenue. it was amount returned back to them that they had prepaid up front, a loan in essence. >> as i understand, i wasn't

sitting on the budget committee at the time, but that memo from the transportation authority was delivered very shortly before the hearing? >> yes. >> was there any discussion then? he city atty fo >> no, we weren't aware of that until the meeting. >> you know, i think it's good that we have some of those multiple agencies [speaker not understood] looking at these issues and raising concerns that can then be hashed out. and i think a better work product can come from that. but you know, i tnk it's really important for agencies to coordinate so that we don't have unnecessary fire drills, especially when maybe not everyone has all the facts at their fingertips at the time. we've seen this before during the cpnc hearing as well where a memo will arrive at the last minute and it causes i think some fire drills that can be avoided. so, i'm glad we were able to work through that. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor olague.

>> yes. i guess what i'm hearing, then, is that the 9.8 million will be remaining with mayor's office of housing and it won't be used for van ness vrt or other projects that were being, you know -- >> that's correct. keeping in mind that's an estimate. but we're pretty sure it's right around that number and that's the amount we would assume back to mo, yes. >> okay. >> thank you. i just wanted to say i know we have a number of hayes valley farm and hayes valley residents that are here today. i wanted to thank openly for the overview of the different affordable housing parcels, it looks like a and c are senior housing, the richardson apartments are for formerly homeless people. >> formerly homeless. >> there is disabled housing. o is the big one that is going to be half of the hayes valley farm is, it looks like a big one, family sized below market rate affordable housing. >> the thinking right now is that it it will be for family

rental. the population we hadn't served with the other sites at this point. >> and then u, which is closer to market street is transitional to aged youth housing. that proposal, that is a smaller one at about a million dollars? >> that's correct. at this time. >> thank you. >> and clearly our ability to serve transitional age youth is a function of our cooperation and the funding of children youth and families agency. >> very good, thank you. mr. rich? >> one thing i neglected to mention i think is a very good thing for us to know is that including the 100% affordable parcel when they're all built out and market rate parcels with the inclusionary affordable housing, octavia boulevard will be at 50% affordable unit. so, i think we should have mentioned that is something to be really proud of with this project. >> thank you. so, if there are no other questions, supervisor olague. >> yes, are we going to open it up for public comment?

>> yes. because of the large number of people, let's limit this for two minutes, at 30 seconds there is a light that will go off. please try to stay within two minutes, everyone. >> ken greenstein, bob barn well, followed by nick parker. hello, i'm bob barn well with the hayes valley neighborhood association, chairman of the public safety committee. thank you, supervisor olague. this is right in the heart of your district and it's four blocks from supervisor wiener's district. we'rtalking about parcel o, the hayes valley farm. and why would you say public safety is involved in this? because the hayes valley farm is reinvigorating the community. it's involving the youth of the

community and we want them to be involved there. would you like the youth of the community to be standing around on the corners or would you like them to come to lectures at the hayes valley farm? we want the parcel o kept open for the hayes valley farm until you have decided that you want to use it for the housing that you want to develop. why does the proxy get parcel l until 2020 and the hayes valley farm is looking at moving out within the next couple of months? this is very important for the community and, you know, we want to reinvigorate the community and the hayes valley farm is worldwide known. it's something that's very good and it's a crime prevention tool. why don't we use the hayes valley farm, allowing the youth and the community to use the hayes valley farm and as a crime prevention tool and keep it there until you're ready to develop it. there's no reason that's why the people developing parcel p are allowed to use parcel o when other redevelopment things are not being used.

parcel o should be kept for the hayes valley farm until you're ready to mke a plan r it. thank you. >> i'll goo the next three. ifyou heard your name, you can come up to the mic. jessie raider followed by jay rosenberg and jim warshel. hi, thank you. i lived at 427 fell, basically there's only two buildings on the whole square block that makeup hayes valley farm. and i lived in one of them for the last five years. and, so, looked out my window and saw firsthand the benefits the farm has brought to the neighborhood t. has turned from a place that was homeless encampment and drug use which i cod iterally see out the back of my bedroom window int a vibrant comnity space that now provides a community education cewre people can come and learn how to garden anlearn about sustain ab food system. i'm a bird watcher.

we had four types of birds now we have over 30 including hawk anall kinds of migrating birds. there are all sorts of benefits the farm bring. in addition to the benefits it brings to the neighborhood it has a national -- it gets national, international attention. we've been in the new york times twice. it has cement san francisco's reputation as the greenest city on earth. we are one of the top 10 city parks in sunset magazine. we have been [speaker not understood] we're in the huffington post as top it was like the 7 coolest architecture projects or recycled architecture projects. the new york city high line is famous with number 3, hayes valley farm was number 2. gazillion airplane magazine, what to do in san francisco. german interview with the national geographic. san francisco lonely planet feature is one of the top things to do. so, it gives a lot of attention. if i can just -- can i take another minute?

it came together out of the whole series of public input and a lot of support from the mayor's office of economic work force development and the merchants association and the neighborhood association and the local residents and we'd like to see that kind of community input and partnership when we consider what happens with parcel o in the future. i'm part of the leadership of hayes valley farm and i do want to make it very clear we are champions of interim youth. we are excited about moving off [speaker not understood] and we are fully intending to do that for parcel p and parcel o we would like more interim use possibilities. thank you. >> thank you. hi, my name is jay. my dog callie is here with me. i wanted to take a moment to consider all of our friends, families and loved ones back east where hurricane sandy has created a great stir for a lot of people.

working in partnership with the hayes valley neighborhood association, the san francisco parks alliance, and the mayor's office of economic and work force development, hayes valley farm has been packing up planning and expecting to get a notice at the end of this year of this successfully interim use project. after a long wait, parcel member of the hayes valley neighborhood association finally seeing progress in the development of parcel p. but this is actually what would happen to the other part of the farm, parcel o, the half that isn't about to be built on. much like efforts to support rent control and bans on formula retail, we of hayes valley often stand alone when we strongly advocate for affordable housing in our neighborhood. parcel o is ultimately slated for affordable housing and i'm thrilled it is going to be family affordable housing. but until then, as i'm learning

now, many people would like to see that to be an agriculture project until that time when that project breaks ground. not for a while, the story has been that the farm needs to vacate both parcels immediately or do it in 90 days. once parcel p development begins. it recently came to light that this is in large part because there is some sort of deal between the development and the opportunity to stage their construction equipment on parcel o. this is silly. no other development project gets a spare acre to park equipment. but actually, as i look around the room and i hear some of the feedback we've gotten all weekend, i believe the issue probably is covered and i want to take just one second to address the larger implication of some of our decisions to the [speaker not understood] in this room. we are a rapidly growing organization. we have come together as a network of urban farmers, dedicated to helping all of our

commutes to create and maintain urban agriculture as a part of san francisco. from the thousands of back yards, front yards, sidewalks, window sills and balconies all over town to the many urban farms that i see represented here today, including 18th and rhode island, alemeny farm, me rammed city, the free farm stand, to growing home community garden as well as garden for the environment, raise the roof, the little city garden, [speaker not understood], please touch community garden, eco sf school farm at the school of the arts, the veggie table at third and pa lou, the treasure island [speaker not understood], the farm that recently got together at the has valley playground and hayes valley farm. we recognize that successful communities are a part of a sustainable environment. we recognize our responsibility to all the relationships that

make -- and we will make decisions with all of these thoughts in mind as our integral communities include our volunteers, our supporters, our partners, and the folks who live right around us. >> i'm sorry, but the other one gets two minutes. so, we may call you back up afterwards to have you finish your statement. but we have to sort of -- i want to thank the general opportunity for community input, for community participation and for neighborhood feedback. >> we're with you completely. we'll call you back up if you need to finish the statement. hi, my name is jim warshel and i've been involved with all of these temporary use projects through my engagement with hayes valley neighborhood association. i have to tell you, all of them, proxy, the homeless connect gardens and the farm have been tremendously successful. and just this past weekend i

was the speaker, i was invited to speak at a state conference at cca talking about sustainable development. and people were blown away when they heard about what was being done here in all three of these types of temporary uses. i've also had the opportunity to participate in the negotiations with the city and rec and park on finding the new home for the farm. and it has been so gratifying to see the integrity and professionalism that the farm community has shown in going into these and acknowledging that this has always been temporary. they would honor all their commitments and look to move forward. this has been a remarkable, remarkable community.

it really brings me at this point to go back to part of supervisor olague's opening comments, which i think are right on target, that activation of the space for along as it's feasible is the goal. and, you know, as was just stated, nobody gets an extra acre to park trucks on when they're doing construction. we have construction all over our neighborhood because of these other sites. they take out either other lots that are parking lots. they take out street parking. they go permits. this is unprecedented. when you look at this site, when you reestablish the alley way between them, fence it off and have always a viable farm entity until it's ready for the other -- >> thank you. that's the way to go. thank you. >> thank you. brent jones, followed by peter

cohan. and david schner. supervisors, my name is brent jones. i'm a graphic artist who has lived two blocks away for 28 years. i also work for the giants for the past eight, so i'm a little out of it right now. but i understand that the plot has been sold and i appreciate the efforts of jay and these other people. but when i moved into hayes valley, you couldn't pay to live that neighborhood. you couldn't get cable companies to put cable in because it wasn't densely enough populated. since i've been there, i didn't do a powerpoint, this is all-new residential. there's a lot of new residential coming in. and i know that there was a hearing on this in june. it kind of went into my radar when i read bought new developments going in blocks away from me. about a month ago they cut all these trees down to build the condos, future units at grove and goff. if you've ever gone by the farm

area, it in itself is an urban oasis and i understand economic development, you know, i feel affordable housing is an oxymoron in this town. anything is driven p by that. i think in the short term gain as compared to long-term benefits, you know, it would be nice if that could be a public park. if you go all the way to the bay and come down this way to the corridor, there are numerous big parks. this lot is half that size, but these trees are irreplacable. and i know for instance, i know randal pine, 30 years, he demolished two old buildings to build the jazz fest and cut down trees to plant smaller ones. so, you lose 80 foot trees for eight-foot trees that will take 50 years for them to grow again. i won't see it in my lifetime. patricia's green is a dog run and kiddie park. the palm trees are dying. there were big trees they cut down there for that. so, i'm just asking as a resident for quality of life issue if there was anyway

eminent domain, whatever you have to do, i know you put 5.8 million of renovation diamond heights, glenn canyon park. there's 10 million for lafayette park. i mean, you know, i understand economic development, but quality of life, you know. it's getting pretty dense over here. take five blocks, you can see all the new development and, you know, i love my neighborhood. it's getting a little out of hand. >> thank you. sit under a tree, read a book. it would be nice. i've got photos here, patricia's green. >> thank you. but it's not a park. anyway, thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. peter cohan from council community organizations. came to talk about the revised true up. i'm glad to hear there is less of a controversy than there was back in april. i think as it was said, the

redevelopment agency using affordable housing money overpaid for parcels purposely so there would be capital build to boulevard. on a personal note i lived in hayes valley and was active in the process of bringing the free ways down and enjoyed the octavia boulevard itself. but where that capital came from wasn't affordable housing money so the true up was a very significant part of returning that favor, if you will. and i'm glad to hear that is no longer contested. that said the number is smaller. we've gone from a 13.$25 million true up to a 9.8. that is a little under $4 million less money going back for those -- early parcel sales which in turn means less revenue to return the affordable housing funding. * but if that's what it takes, then okay. we do have some concern, though, that that number be solid, and my understanding is that these specifications you saw in your presentation will

be immemorialized in an m-o-u so there will be greater stability. i do have, if anybody would care on the board, a 2009 memo from office of economic development at the time that the board of supervisors at that point laid up the true up deal. hopefully the m-o-u will be very firm. we also really think it would be a good idea to have an annual hearing or some sort of frequency to talk about the progress of octavia, the land sales, and the allocations of these funds. and also the mayor's office of housing, oewd and dpw work together, again, shared responsibility for the accounting on these funds going forward. thanks so much. thank you, supervisors. my name is david schner, director for [speaker not understood]. we were developers of parcel g which was mentioned. we appreciate your

acknowledgment of the national and international recognition the building has gotten. you can see the building from city hall. i'd like to second peter cohan's comments about concerns about the drop in the amount of money to be repaid to affordable housing purposes. there is a continued need for affordable housing throughout the city including in the central freeway parcels, parcels o and u will likely both require city resources from general city affordable housing sources. so, to see the amount of money being repaid dropping from 17 to 13.2 and now to $9.8 million is certainly a concern. i'm glad to note that the agreement is that if there should be more than $9.8 million left over the additional funds will go back to the mayor's office of housing. should the other projects, the

additional improvements, van ness improvements cost more than is currently budgeted, does that mean the money comes from a firedable housing fund? is affordable housing the last priority for the use of funds that were in fact the low mod housing dollars in the first place? i'd ask the board to keep very careful watch on that. * the city is pushing, we're all working together towards the passage of proposition c because there has been a loss of affordable housing dollars throughout the city. i think this would be a very difficult time to say that we should be taking funds away from affordable housing uses. so, i'd ask the board to carefully monitor the ongoing progress of those projects and make sure that funds are available to replenish the low mod dollars in the city. thank you. >> thank you. robin levitt followed by sharon colt, william pickle or pickel.